SLAPP

June 21, 2016

There was a time - in the not too distant past, I should say - that support for “anti-SLAPP” proposals was a given for any self-respecting progressive organization. SLAPP suits, or “strategic lawsuits against public participation,” are meritless suits typically brought by companies for the sole purpose of silencing or intimidating critics.

A well-known survivor of corporate intimidation himself, Ralph Nader was an early proponent of raising awareness about the dangers of SLAPP suits, in fact writing in support of the first book ever critiquing them in the 1990s. ("Anyone who treasures and uses the First Amendment will find this first ever book on the SLAPP suit epidemic a wake up call to careful civic action.”) This is interesting because Ralph Nader is also one of the nation’s most principled champions of civil litigation and the “tort system,” and to an equal degree, critic of “tort reform” laws that make it more difficult for people to sue. In fact, last year he launched an entire museum celebrating the tort system and the right to sue. Yet when it comes right down to it, anti-SLAPP laws are nothing if not a type of “tort reform,” i.e., they make it easier for certain kinds of cases to get thrown out of court. Clearly, bill drafters face real challenges when defining what qualifies as a “SLAPP suit.” No one wants legitimate cases thrown out too. ("Baby with the bathwater" kind of thing.)

Enter corporate America. Let’s just first say this: never underestimate the ability of Big Business to co-op an issue, twist it around to their advantage and make it their own. Unfortunately, this is the lesson of anti-SLAPP legislation in America. Corporations have now completely glommed onto the anti-SLAPP crusade, turning a decent idea intended to protect civil rights plaintiffs, whistleblowers, consumer advocates and other public interest entities, into a weapon that corporations can and will use against them.

The first wind of trouble came when the much-maligned American Legislative Exchange Council adopted a model anti-SLAPP bill at the insistence of then ALEC member, Yelp. ALEC, as we’ve noted before, is “run and funded by big corporations that subsidize the involvement of conservative state lawmakers, who then push for enactment of model bills written by the corporations who pay them.”

Then, the “tort reform” crowd in Congress got their tiny, dirty little hands on the issue. They have constructed a federal bill – H.R. 2304 – that’s even worse than ALEC’s. Their leader is Rep. Blake Farenthold (R-TX), one of the most conservative, anti-consumer and anti-civil justice members of Congress. And tomorrow, the House Subcommittee on the Constitution and Civil Justice is holding a hearing on this bill. Here are a few things to know about it:

Sixteen major consumer and civil justice groups have sent letters to the committee opposing this bill. This even includes some groups that support the concept of anti-SLAPP legislation – that’s how bad this bill is. Opponents include, among others, Consumers Union (publisher of Consumer Reports), Public Citizen, Earthjustice, National Association of Consumer Advocates, and the Center for Justice & Democracy.

Among reasons for such strong opposition is this: the bill’s definition of “SLAPP” is so broad that it could apply to almost every civil case filed in state court and could be easily exploited by corporate miscreants and used against those trying to hold them accountable, including whistleblowers. Or as Consumers Union put it, “As the bill is written, we are concerned that its purpose could be turned on its head.”

The bill contains provisions with which “tort reform” proponents have tried infect many other bills, which are against public policy, and which have so far been stopped. As groups noted in one opposition letter, “The bill creates additional special federal rules and procedures, which many of our organizations have opposed in every other civil justice context. This includes mandatory sanctions, which are contrary to Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and fee–shifting proposals that are against public policy.”

The bill would preempt state tort laws in all 50 states and would dump into federal court state law cases that have no business being in federal court. Another group letter notes, “Foremost, the bill unnecessarily, and we think unconstitutionally, federalizes state-law claims, allowing defendants to delay litigation by dragging wholly state-law claims into federal court.”

It is telling that the forces behind this anti-SLAPP bill are not the progeny of Ralph Nader. They are primarily media trade associations and Yelp (whose representative testifies in Congress tomorrow.) Facing Yelp and others at the hearing will be Cardozo law professor Alexander A. Reinert, who wrote in his written testimony,

H.R. 2304 takes the rationale behind state anti-SLAPP measures, federalizes it, and then expands the coverage of anti-SLAPP legislation beyond all recognition. What it creates is a tool that is bound to be abused against important litigation, that will burden the federal courts with additional cases and motion practice, and that is almost certainly unconstitutional.

California has had an anti-SLAPP law for many years. But as Professor Reinert notes, “California courts have come to lament the existence of the anti-SLAPP law, observing that the law is being abused by defendants who continually seek to expand the definition of a SLAPP suit.” He then goes on to list “just a sample of the statements of exasperation that California’s judiciary has expressed about the anti-SLAPP law."

September 09, 2013

We’ll
take a break from the big questions of the day (Will the U.S. go to war? Will
Anthony Weiner’s crotch continue as a news story),
to talk about something nice for a change – the awesome, student-led campaign
that just forced student loan lender Sallie Mae to abandon the American
Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), making it the 50th or so corporate
member to do so!
Students deserve all the credit here. Notes
PR Watch,

In
August, at ALEC's Annual Meeting in Chicago, organizers with the Student Labor
Action Project and the United States Students Association gathered nearly 14,000
signatures on a petition demanding Sallie Mae drop its ALEC
membership. A few months earlier, in May, at least 200 student
activists protested outside Sallie Mae’s annual shareholder meeting,
demanding that it end its relationship with ALEC and increase transparency
about its other lobbying and political activities.…

With
the departure of Sallie Mae, at least 50 corporations
and six nonprofits have publicly cut ties to ALEC since the Center for Media
and Democracy launched ALECexposed.org in 2011 (although Wells Fargo has recently begun funding
the group again).

And
then … there’s Yelp! What to say about
Yelp!? A head-scratcher, for sure.

Yelp!
has been subjected to relentless protestsfor recently joining ALEC. Yelp!, which is involved with ALEC’s anti-consumer, anti-victim, “tort reform” task force, says it believes in ALEC because of all the
good ALEC might do pushing anti-SLAPP lawsuit legislation.

If
you’re unaware of the term “SLAPP,” here’s Wiki’s brief definition: “A strategic lawsuit against public
participation (SLAPP) is
a lawsuit that is
intended to censor, intimidate, and
silence critics by burdening them with the cost of a legal defense
until they abandon their criticism or opposition." On it's face, sounds like a worthy goal. But so does ridding countries of chemical
weapons. Sometimes, the “solution” can
make things worse.

Indeed,
anti-SLAPP legislation is just as likely to be helpful as harmful to everyday
people. For example, there’s one version
circulating in the U.S. Senate which was introduced by U.S. Senator Jon Kyl, one of that
bodies’ clearest and uncompromising “tort reform” Senators. Any wonder why that is? Or why this bill is strongly opposed by public interest groups? Because it’s overly broad and susceptible to
corporate abuse by defendants in cases having nothing to do with
the exercise of First Amendment rights, that’s why. In other words, some anti-SLAPP laws can be easily
turned on their heads by corporate bullies, interfering with access to the
civil justice system for worthy, legitimate and important cases. Ergo, ALEC’s support.

Attorney
Julian McMillan says Yelp sued him [emphasis added] in retaliation after he won his own legal
claim against the company and began recruiting other businesses with similar
grievances. “This is their way of swatting down a gnat,” says McMillan, who
runs a solo law firm focusing on bankruptcies. “They’re trying to get me to
spend money because they want to give pause to the next business that sues
them.”

McMillan
took Yelp to small-claims court earlier this year, alleging that the website
didn’t fully deliver on ads he bought from the company. In April, the judge
ruled in McMillan’s favor and ordered Yelp to reimburse him $2,700. Last month,
days before an appeals court would overturn that ruling, Yelp sued McMillan
over charges he planted fake reviews of his own law firm. Bloomberg BNA first
reported on the lawsuit last month.…

There’s
a touch of irony to the allegation of Yelp suing McMillan as a form of
retribution. On Friday, protestors affiliated with MoveOn demonstrated in front
of Yelp’s San Francisco headquarters. The cause: Yelp’s support for legislation
that would bar businesses from using lawsuits to bully people who post negative
reviews about them online.

Actually,
it’s pretty clear that MoveOn’s demonstration was focused more on Yelp! (via ALEC)'s support for Stand Your Ground, Voter ID and a host of other bad laws, which has
already led 50 some companies to head for the hills when it comes to
ALEC. But we’ll take it.

Got a News Tip?

All opinions expressed on this blog are those of the authors only. Any disputes should be addressed to the authors or commentators. The Pop Tort invites comment to further the debate on issues addressed, but we reserve the right to deny or remove any post or comment.